Repeating problem: (unbound), jid 0, uid 59, was killed: failed to reclaim memory

[cmcdonald]

@jrey said in Repeating problem: (unbound), jid 0, uid 59, was killed: failed to reclaim memory:

reason unbound could be restarting is because you are using the Kea DHCP server. There are numerous threads on why in the current release causes unbound to restart. For now switch to ISC DHCP, and stop the Kea release from restarting unbound every time a client adds a DHCP lease. if that is your case

This it not accurate. We have only introduced Kea integration with Unbound in the upcoming 24.08 release.

[jrey]

@cmcdonald

Thanks for the clarity regarding Kea. Seems I may have read this (quoted below, and many other threads) incorrectly. That is, those suggesting that the issue occurs with Kea and DHCP client registration, and that switching to ICP DHCP resolves their issues. Personally I wouldn't be able to verify either way as I run all my DHCP services and DNS client registration on another platform, not on the Netgate. I should likely not have commented specifically on KEA on this platform in the first place. Appreciate your time providing the correct information.

@Gertjan said in Netgate 2100 blocking? Spotify issue:

If presume you use KEA as the DHCP server (is that so ?), so it's not the dreaded dhcp_leases process that restarts unbound on every incoming DHCP lease or lease renew.

@bmeeks said in Netgate 2100 blocking? Spotify issue:

Is perhaps DHCP client registration in DNS enabled on the firewall? If so, that can result in unbound restarts each time a DHCP client obtains or renews its lease. If enabled, that can contribute to a bunch of unbound DNS Resolver restarts. Combine that with large DNSBL lists and you could have a perfect storm essentially killing DNS resolution on the network for large intervals of time.

@SteveITS said in Netgate 2100 blocking? Spotify issue:

FWIW to all, this was/will be finally changed, in Kea, in 24.08.
https://www.netgate.com/blog/improvements-to-kea-dhcp

@stephenw10 said in Netgate 2100 blocking? Spotify issue:

Yup, going to be so much better!

[Mission-Ghost]

Thank you to everyone who has taken the time to respond. Here is some detail:

The crash hasn't happened in a couple of days. This is typical. It's seems to occur on a more or less random basis.

^This suggests that servicewatchdog isn't typically jumping on the pfBlocker initiated restart. I would, I suspect, see this in the logs if it happened at the designated pfBlocker update time, which I do not.

Kea is my DHCP server.

DHCP client registration in DNS is not enabled. I don't need this function.

Memory usage is at about 65%, which is typical. Seeing higher is uncommon and I have never seen full memory usage. How can I find any other evidence of what free memory was at the times these process killings occurred to test the hypothesis that memory is filling up?

pfBlocker has been a worthwhile part of my security profile. While it may be a contributing factor, I would like to find supporting evidence of this in logs rather than experimenting with shutting it off. I don't have vast numbers of block lists.

I set incoming and outgoing TCP buffers to 20 from the default of 10.

I set the Message Cache to 10mb from 4mb.

The only Advanced check boxes I have in the DNS Resolver (unbound) are Prefetch Support and Keep Probing.

Questions:

Could using the Python module be a factor?

Could Prefetch Support and/or Keep Probing be a factor?

Plan:

I'll try setting TCP buffers and message caches back down to the defaults and see how that affects it.

I'm looking forward to the improved Kea and Unbound integration.

[jrey]

@Mission-Ghost

open the pfblockerng.log

Firewall -> pfBlockerNG -> Logs. (log type = Log Files, Log/file selection: pfblockerng.log)

scroll near the end of the file -- look for the section
pfSense Table Stats

let us know what values you see below that heading.
there should be two lines
table-entries hard limit (with a value)
Table Usage Count (with a value)

but your recent post suggests you don't think the issue it is related to pfBlockerNG based on timestamps..

[bmeeks]

@Mission-Ghost said in Repeating problem: (unbound), jid 0, uid 59, was killed: failed to reclaim memory:

^This suggests that servicewatchdog isn't typically jumping on the pfBlocker initiated restart. I would, I suspect, see this in the logs if it happened at the designated pfBlocker update time, which I do not.

Service Watchdog is a troubleshooting/workaround package. It was not designed to be a regular production feature. It simply periodically checks if the specified daemon is running, and restarts it immediately if it's not. With daemons that periodically either restart themselves, or are restarted by third-party packages, ignorance of such an automatic restart by Service Watchdog can result in it gumming up the works. That's why we suggest not running that package as a normal production feature.

@Mission-Ghost said in Repeating problem: (unbound), jid 0, uid 59, was killed: failed to reclaim memory:

Memory usage is at about 65%, which is typical. Seeing higher is uncommon and I have never seen full memory usage. How can I find any other evidence of what free memory was at the times these process killings occurred to test the hypothesis that memory is filling up?

This will be a dynamic failure. That means you would need to be constantly watching the memory utilization on the box to notice. You can scan the logs for any messages such as "out of swap space" or similar low-memory log messages.

@Mission-Ghost said in Repeating problem: (unbound), jid 0, uid 59, was killed: failed to reclaim memory:

Could using the Python module be a factor?

Very possible. There were some Python memory leak bugs in older versions of unbound. Perhaps not all the bugs have been slain ???

But I believe you need the Python Module enabled to fully utilize the DNSBL function (but I don't use that feature and thus am not an authority in this area).

[jrey]

@bmeeks said in Repeating problem: (unbound), jid 0, uid 59, was killed: failed to reclaim memory:

Perhaps not all the bugs have been slain ???

seems he is running 24.03 which should be running
start of service (unbound 1.19.3). <- at least on my 2100

Zero memory leaks here, system will stay pretty flat lined with regards to memory use for weeks. (about the only time it really fluctuates is when I reboot - then it drops to zero - LOL) so almost never..

During this timeframe (past week shown) unbound has restarted exactly one time, due to one of the lists being updated for DNSBL the lists I use refresh every 3 / 4 days. That's when unbound will restart, but It is pretty stable. Other lists may / may not update more often.

Some settings to confirm.

Might be a fair question, even though @Mission-Ghost doesn't think it is related to pfblocker based on time stamps of events, but that we also ask for the version of pfblocker that is installed on the system?

I still also say - turn the service watchdog off.

[Mission-Ghost]

@jrey said in Repeating problem: (unbound), jid 0, uid 59, was killed: failed to reclaim memory:

@Mission-Ghost

open the pfblockerng.log

Firewall -> pfBlockerNG -> Logs. (log type = Log Files, Log/file selection: pfblockerng.log)

scroll near the end of the file -- look for the section
pfSense Table Stats

let us know what values you see below that heading.
there should be two lines
table-entries hard limit (with a value)
Table Usage Count (with a value)

pfSense Table Stats

table-entries hard limit 400000
Table Usage Count 17743

but your recent post suggests you don't think the issue it is related to pfBlockerNG based on timestamps..

Correct. pfBlocker updates about 3am, last crash I reported here was in the 5am and 2pm hours.

[jrey]

@Mission-Ghost

seems to be a recurring issue for you going back to 23.05 and 23.09?

So has the problem ever gone away?

https://forum.netgate.com/topic/184130/23-09-unbound-killed-failing-to-reclaim-memory

[jrey]

@Mission-Ghost said in Repeating problem: (unbound), jid 0, uid 59, was killed: failed to reclaim memory:

table-entries hard limit 400000
Table Usage Count 17743

those don't look like a problem -- pretty small list

[Mission-Ghost]

@bmeeks said in Repeating problem: (unbound), jid 0, uid 59, was killed: failed to reclaim memory:

@Mission-Ghost said in Repeating problem: (unbound), jid 0, uid 59, was killed: failed to reclaim memory:

^This suggests that servicewatchdog isn't typically jumping on the pfBlocker initiated restart. I would, I suspect, see this in the logs if it happened at the designated pfBlocker update time, which I do not.

Service Watchdog is a troubleshooting/workaround package. It was not designed to be a regular production feature. It simply periodically checks if the specified daemon is running, and restarts it immediately if it's not. With daemons that periodically either restart themselves, or are restarted by third-party packages, ignorance of such an automatic restart by Service Watchdog can result in it gumming up the works. That's why we suggest not running that package as a normal production feature.

I understand. But this instability causes random downtime that doesn't correct itself, so the tradeoff is worth it. Until unbound is stable, I need something to keep the dns and by extension the network running so I'm not always running to restart unbound and fielding complaints.

@Mission-Ghost said in Repeating problem: (unbound), jid 0, uid 59, was killed: failed to reclaim memory:

Memory usage is at about 65%, which is typical. Seeing higher is uncommon and I have never seen full memory usage. How can I find any other evidence of what free memory was at the times these process killings occurred to test the hypothesis that memory is filling up?

This will be a dynamic failure. That means you would need to be constantly watching the memory utilization on the box to notice. You can scan the logs for any messages such as "out of swap space" or similar low-memory log messages.

In the last 10,000 system/general log messages, which takes me back to mid-August, there are only the unbound messages previously reported here and the following which only appeared on August 31 in the middle of many unbound failed to reclaim memory error messages before and after:

solisten_clone: pcb 0xffffa000297dc000: New socket allocation failure: limit reached or out of memory 

I'll highlight again the unbound error is about reclaiming memory, not failing to allocate or running out of memory.

@Mission-Ghost said in Repeating problem: (unbound), jid 0, uid 59, was killed: failed to reclaim memory:

Could using the Python module be a factor?

Very possible. There were some Python memory leak bugs in older versions of unbound. Perhaps not all the bugs have been slain ???

But I believe you need the Python Module enabled to fully utilize the DNSBL function (but I don't use that feature and thus am not an authority in this area).

I believe that's correct; I need Python Module to run pfBlocker.

[Mission-Ghost]

@jrey said in Repeating problem: (unbound), jid 0, uid 59, was killed: failed to reclaim memory:

@bmeeks said in Repeating problem: (unbound), jid 0, uid 59, was killed: failed to reclaim memory:

Perhaps not all the bugs have been slain ???

seems he is running 24.03 which should be running
start of service (unbound 1.19.3). <- at least on my 2100

Might be a fair question, even though @Mission-Ghost doesn't think it is related to pfblocker based on time stamps of events, but that we also ask for the version of pfblocker that is installed on the system?

Here's my memory chart for the last month; uptime now is 28 days:

I still also say - turn the service watchdog off.

I'd love to...once this stops killing production at random times and requiring manual intervention.

[Mission-Ghost]

@jrey said in Repeating problem: (unbound), jid 0, uid 59, was killed: failed to reclaim memory:

@Mission-Ghost

seems to be a recurring issue for you going back to 23.05 and 23.09?

So has the problem ever gone away?

https://forum.netgate.com/topic/184130/23-09-unbound-killed-failing-to-reclaim-memory

No. It ebbs and flows. It seemed better enough for a while that I turned off service watchdog and then it recurred killing the network, so I turned service watchdog back on. So I'm trying again to figure it out with this forum's generous help.

So, after my last post I have changed in unbound the following:

• memory cache size down from 10 to 4mb
• in and out tcp buffers down from 20 to 10
• EDNS buffer to default from automatic

We'll see if this has a material effect on the errors posting to the log and unbound being killed for failing to reclaim memory.

[bmeeks]

@Mission-Ghost said in Repeating problem: (unbound), jid 0, uid 59, was killed: failed to reclaim memory:

We'll see if this has a material effect on the errors posting to the log and unbound being killed for failing to reclaim memory.

Do not get confused by the unfortunate poor wording of the kernel's error message. The OOM killer is a kernel process that is launched to unconditionally terminate the largest consumer of user space memory in order to prevent the system from becoming unstable. It's the kernel saying "unbound has continued to consume more and more memory and has not returned any back to the system pool". The fault here is with unbound consuming memory. It is unbound consuming memory and never releasing it back to the system.

[jrey]

@Mission-Ghost said in Repeating problem: (unbound), jid 0, uid 59, was killed: failed to reclaim memory:

The only Advanced check boxes I have in the DNS Resolver (unbound) are Prefetch Support and Keep Probing.

just for fun try to Turn off Prefetch support and restart unbound

[Mission-Ghost]

@jrey said in Repeating problem: (unbound), jid 0, uid 59, was killed: failed to reclaim memory:

@Mission-Ghost said in Repeating problem: (unbound), jid 0, uid 59, was killed: failed to reclaim memory:

The only Advanced check boxes I have in the DNS Resolver (unbound) are Prefetch Support and Keep Probing.

just for fun try to Turn off Prefetch support and restart unbound

This was my first experiment. Unfortunately it was ineffective, so I turned it back on.

So far no failures following the changes I mentioned a couple of posts ago. I may return them to original values one at a time until a failure is noted so I can isolate the issue.

Someday a project to substantially improve the log messages to aid in end-user understanding of what is happening and proper recovery procedures would add tremendous value to the product.

[jrey]

@Mission-Ghost said in Repeating problem: (unbound), jid 0, uid 59, was killed: failed to reclaim memory:

This was my first experiment.

Ah sorry, I missed that. How long did it run then ?

I just mentioned it because it was mentioned in an earlier bug on NLnet Labs
(that should have been fixed by 1.19.3 (the version I am running, as should you on 24.03).

Do you keep a log of your setting and the runtime you get from each test before it fails, it may or may not prove helpful in trying to find the answer if you don't.

although it is manifesting as a unbound memory error, I wouldn't rule out anything else reducing the available memory over time or running past something at a given point in time. You have established (by lack of matching event times) that when it occurs not being consistent with say pfBlockerNG, what about say mailreport?. I've never used it but if it is doing something that requires lookups when generating the reports,(again I don't know that it does) on a system with limited memory it might stretch to the point the unbound isn't releasing fast enough in a limited pool and it gets wacked because that is what the kernel sees as the "bad guy" at that time.

at a glance mailreport doesn't really say much about what it is reporting on (or what you are reporting on) saying only that:
"Allows you to setup periodic e-mail reports containing command output, and log file contents"

huge spikes in memory likely wouldn't show on a 28 day memory graph with a 1 day resolution in the sample.

when it happens try a narrow the graph with less time and more frequent resolution and see what is going on, maybe something like an hour/with 1 minute resolution.
OR
Since the data is still there, you could use the custom feature of the graph and specify the time range and graph resolution from a previous time it gave up. again not to small time slice, but lean toward more time leading up to the logged event.
Again may or may not be helpful or give some clues.

really just trying to see why unbound is the unwilling victim getting killed so randomly. It should run for days and days, weeks and weeks without this and only restart when something like pfBlocker tell it to restart (those restart events will be listed in the pfblockerng.log. as well as the resolver log On most system that restart is usually pretty quick and you wouldn't normally notice. (but one would also assume at that point in time unbound would flush everything during the restart. The service is stopping and starting. So any memory it had would/should be cleared at that time.

It is at that point in time (when unbound is restarting) that if things are a little sluggish the watchdog may see it down and try to start another or worse multiple copies. things will usually go really bad, really fast. I understand that you believe the watchdog is in your best interest, but it is really not, in this case. Still up to you how to proceed, of course.

Edit: if you looking for the restarts in pfblockerng.log they will look like this (but may not be there every time pfblocker runs as it only restarts when it has to (ie a list has changed) )

Saving DNSBL statistics... completed
Reloading Unbound Resolver (DNSBL python)
Stopping Unbound Resolver.
Unbound stopped in 2 sec.
Additional mounts (DNSBL python):
  No changes required.
Starting Unbound Resolver... completed [ 09/13/24 14:15:09 ]

[Mission-Ghost]

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. It's interesting and gave me some things to think about.

@jrey said in Repeating problem: (unbound), jid 0, uid 59, was killed: failed to reclaim memory:

@Mission-Ghost said in Repeating problem: (unbound), jid 0, uid 59, was killed: failed to reclaim memory:

This was my first experiment.

Ah sorry, I missed that. How long did it run then ?

Just a day or two before the next event occurred.

Do you keep a log of your setting and the runtime you get from each test before it fails, it may or may not prove helpful in trying to find the answer if you don't.

No. I imagine it might be helpful.

although it is manifesting as a unbound memory error, I wouldn't rule out anything else reducing the available memory over time or running past something at a given point in time.

An interesting idea. Without logs or symptoms pointing specifically to an item it seems it would be a bit of a fishing expedition.

at a glance mailreport doesn't really say much about what it is reporting on (or what you are reporting on) saying only that:
"Allows you to setup periodic e-mail reports containing command output, and log file contents"

I use mailreport to email the last several lines of some logs to myself once a day to keep tabs on possible problems without having to sign in every day and review logs in detail. It's how I flagged this problem.

really just trying to see why unbound is the unwilling victim getting killed so randomly. It should run for days and days, weeks and weeks without this and only restart when something like pfBlocker tell it to restart

Indeed, I have not had a failure event since I lowered the memory cache size, in/out buffers and edns buffer three days ago.

So far the evidence supports the hypothesis that while these higher settings didn't precipitate an unbound failure right away, it did allow it to grow at a later time outside of the resources available on the 1100. Clearly the 1100 can't support more than the default settings in at least a couple of areas. I previously had an update fail because I'd used non-default settings in another part of the system. It was tricky to diagnose.

It would be helpful to have some more discussion in the manuals that recommend against adjusting the defaults upward on an 1100 due to the limitations.

[JonathanLee]

Do you use swap ?? If so you should have a crash report in the crash logs

[Mission-Ghost]

@JonathanLee said in Repeating problem: (unbound), jid 0, uid 59, was killed: failed to reclaim memory:

Do you use swap ?? If so you should have a crash report in the crash logs

Best I can tell from documentation and forum posts is the 1100 does not have/use swap space.

[JonathanLee]

@Mission-Ghost we you could always configure usb drive to be your swap